Mineworkers' Lung Damage: Compensation (Hansard, 29 January 1998)

§ Lord Clinton-Davis
My Lords, I wish to express at the outset the Government's real sympathy to all those miners who have suffered lung damage in the sad circumstances which led to this legal action, and to their families. The Government are seeking urgent legal and expert advice on the implications of the judgment and how best to take matters forward. In the meantime the Government's claims administrators are due to meet 329 the plaintiffs' solicitors co-ordinating group next Monday to begin the process of agreeing proper arrangements for making compensation available where the Government are clearly liable.
The Government understand the vulnerability of retired mineworkers with severe emphysema. We have made it clear to our administrators that this vulnerability should not be exploited by any delaying tactics. Our objective, wherever possible, is to secure a fair and prompt settlement.

§ Lord Davies of Coity
My Lords, I am extremely grateful for my noble friend's reply. Before pressing him further, I would like to declare an interest. My father-in-law is 86 years of age. He spent 45 years in the pits of South Wales. He is medically assessed to have a disability with a combination of ailments comprising pneumoconiosis, emphysema and bronchitis. He has 80 per cent. disability, thereby having only 20 per cent. of normal breathing capacity. Therefore, given the age of hundreds, if not thousands, of ex-miners in similar circumstances, does my noble friend agree that this matter has to be dealt with with extreme urgency? If so, are there proposals for making interim payments in the usual way? Furthermore, is it not right that there should be a tribunal set up, chaired by a judge, to deal with the question of compensation outside the normal legal system, bearing in mind that many mineworkers entitled to compensation have died in the past eight years while awaiting this judgment?

§ Lord Clinton-Davis
My Lords, let me express my community of interest with my noble friend in what he has said about the travails of so many miners in the past. Miners have died even during the currency of this litigation. The question of interim payments is a difficult one. Not all the issues have been totally clarified by the judgment. It is a very complex judgment. As the solicitor representing some of the claimants said, it is a kind of test case. We are still reviewing the implications of the judgment. However, my noble friend can accept from me—and I hope that it was clear from my Answer—that we are dealing with the matter with the utmost urgency. We shall consider the question of interim payments.
As regards the last point, I do not believe that it would be particularly helpful to set up a tribunal relating to this particular litigation, which may affect many more miners. If my noble friend was asking for a wider tribunal of inquiry, I cannot comment on that today.

§ Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many miners will be greatly satisfied with his reply this afternoon that there will be no delay? That is unlike the procedure of the previous administration in 1993 when the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council recommended that bronchitis and emphysema should be prescribed as industrial diseases among mineworkers. There is documentary evidence that government departments, through correspondence, suggested that the matter should be delayed as long as possible as many miners would die before the recommendations were implemented, and that was done 330 in order to save money. I am sure that the present Administration would never dream of doing such a thing. Will the Minister consider that there may be an easy way of dealing with these issues rather than dragging men through the courts and legislation? Will he also consider that all the mineworkers who have already been assessed and awarded industrial injuries benefits because their diseases were caused through working in the mines, and who are now receiving those benefits, should be considered for immediate compensation, again, without dragging them through the courts?

§ Lord Clinton-Davis
My Lords, as with all large-scale tragedies of this kind—the "Herald of Free Enterprise" springs to mind and many others—each individual case has to be considered on its own merits. It is regrettable, but it takes time. Each individual may have a claim for special damages besides the general damages being claimed, and that has to be very carefully invigilated. Having said all that, as I have indicated, I am trying, together with my honourable friend Mr. John Battle, to make sure that the oft-adopted tactics of insurance, of taking advantage of the vulnerability of a claimant or plaintiff, will not be pursued here. We give that solemn undertaking. We have given instructions to those advising us that under no circumstances should they have recourse to such dubious tactics.